The Changing Face Of Warfare

The other day I was sitting in my armchair thinking about lessons being learned by the grinding and ever-evolving war between Ukraine and Russia and the more recent war between the U.S. and Iran.  Armchair general stuff was swirling-about in my civilian brain.  Mostly about the asymmetric nature of the conflicts as it pertains to large, global powers going-up against smaller powers and the cost-asymmetry observed in the use of costly exquisite weapons to defeat numerous unsophisticated and cheap weapons.

Just as armor, gunpowder, artillery, naval power, the machine gun, poison gas, communications, mechanization, aircraft and mutually assured destruction changed the face of warfare; we are witness to another.    

Only last month an advanced AH-64 Apache attack chopper was downed by a loitering Iranian unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV).  A $30 million aircraft defeated by an unmanned drone that costs $20,000.  The pilots survived and were pulled from the waters the the Strait of Hormuz by an unmanned drone watercraft.  Lots of technology packaged in this single incident and a huge disparity in the price of weapon systems.  

China currently produces UAVs and similar loitering drones at a scale  that is stunning.  And if we found ourselves in a shooting war over Taiwan all we got is an ever-dwindling supply of Patriot missiles to shoot them down.  At $4 million a copy.

Shooting million-dollar missiles at twenty-thousand-dollar drones is unsustainable. 

Say hello to the new face of modern warfare. 

Ukraine has embraced drone warfare in earnest; including the deployment of autonomous UAVs capable of  delivering a warhead over vast distances; all the while stalling and reversing Russian advances into their territory at a terrifying cost in Russian and North Korean lives.

    

Assembling a single modern Patriot Advanced Capability-3 interceptor takes about a couple of years.  A solid rocket motor requires up to thirty months.  Setting-up a new assembly facility for Patriot missiles can presently take three to four years.

Ukraine assembles and delivers small FPV (First Person View) reconnaissance and kamikaze drones in a matter of hours to a couple of days.  Supply chain and procurement move an order from workshop to combat deployment in 24 to 48 hours.  Larger strategic strike UAVs and maritime drone boats requires only weeks.

Finally, there is the application of artificial intelligence to facilitate modern warfare. AI software processes real-time intelligence feeds to coordinate operations and advise targeting in single minutes and seconds.

Unmanned drones use onboard computer vision to lock-onto and strike targets independently; thereby defeating electronic jamming.  AI-enabled hardware permits inexpensive weapons systems to defeat high-value targets like tanks, missiles and ships.

Machine learning can sort thru overwhelming amounts of geospatial and signal intelligence that previously would require thousands of human analysts.  

Sadly, modern conflicts have become a test bed for rapid evolution in warfare and tactics as we've known it. 

Meanwhile, the administration has phased-out the Army's cutting edge drone warfare unit.   

And the U.S. is hesitant to allow Ukraine to manufacture Patriot missiles locally, partially to protect U.S. military intellectual property, but more so because it doesn't want Ukraine to do it better.  

Shortsighted?  Or brilliant strategy?  Judging from how the war with Iran is playing-out only time will tell.  Watch the Peter Zeihan video short to the end.  Better yet read the comments.... 

Mixed Messages

I've published on this subject previously and reflecting-upon recent gains in the investment markets, a reasonably robust jobs report, the peace process (or lack-there-of) for the Iran war why are the people seemingly down on their economic situation and possibly even a wee bit grumpy?

Consumer sentiment has dropped again.  According to the University of Michigan, the Consumer Sentiment Index fell to 48.2. from 49.8 in April.  The numbers are preliminary and subject to revision; nevertheless, this is the second consecutive all-time low in a data set that has been collected since the late 1970s.

I look at the economic world through the eyes of a recovering financial advisor and while I'm not wearing rose-colored glasses my sense is that excepting for global economic instability and rising energy costs as a consequence of the Iran war, economically-speaking, things are generally OK.  

What gives?  

Seems like the culprit are those nagging exceptions; namely the war, inflation due to energy costs and tariffs along with generalized economic uncertainty; all of which conspire to create bad vibes that bleeds into weakness in the mood of consumers.  This is important as the lion's share of our domestic economy is driven by consumers and their consumption.

According to the survey's director, Joanne Hsu, the drop is; "Owing to a surge in concerns about high prices both for personal finances as well as buying conditions for major purchases."  One-third of respondents mentioned gas prices as the biggest cause for concern; and another one-third cited tariffs. 

Stock indexes held positive in the wake of this news; and the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that job creation was stronger than expected in April with non farm payrolls rising by a modest 115,000 and unemployment holding steady at 4.3%.  A recession is presently a low-probability event.  Further evidence that things, economically-speaking, are generally OK.  

My sense is the weakness in the Michigan survey numbers reflect public opinion in light of soaring prices for gas and diesel at the start of the summer travel season.  Consequently, there is a political shadow over all of this.  People are pissed-off and tiring of the drama have contracted a case of Trump fatigue.  And I get it; we just purchased airline tickets for a family vacation and with the cost of jet fuel doubling it's not a cheap date.

My preference is for policy that improves your and my prosperity and general lot in life.  Along with making the world a safer place; so, where’re we at?

On one hand the stock market is on an absolute tear, with the NASDAQ up 5% last week and nearly 13% year-to-date.  The proximate causes include a shaky cease-fire with Iran, a 28% surge in S&P corporate profits for the first quarter and some consensus-beating economic reports, like Friday's payroll numbers. 

On the other hand, there is this. 

The Strait remains off-line, inflation is up, Iran holds all of its enriched uranium and President Trump's war has set in motion a cascade of destabilizing events that have all manner of consequences for global stability, security and the world economy.  

Meanwhile there is a billion dollar+ ballroom, a triumphal arch, a glowering visage of Trump on passports and national park passes and a no-bid, resort-blue paint job for the historic Washington Monument Reflecting Pool.  

It's a mixed message for sure.

Good grief.... 

It's The Economy Stupid

A strategist in Bill Clinton's successful 1992 presidential campaign against incumbent George H. W. Bush; the title of this post was coined by James Carville as a missive to campaign workers. 

As we began the second year of Donald Trump's second term in office by traditional measures our economy was in decent shape.  Most forecasts put 2026 GDP growth around 2 - 2.5% with a solid, steady expansion and little risk of recession.  

Interest rates were expected to ease or stabilize while tax and spending policies supporting business and consumers took effect.  

Productivity gains and demand would lead to business - technology in particular - to post record profits.  All while artificial intelligence would boost efficiencies, margins and long term growth potential.  

The labor market was expected to remain near full employment levels with the prospects for American business and consumers looked much brighter following SCOTUS' striking-down of the president's import taxes.

Then President Trump unilaterally decided to go to war with Iran.  He did not ask for, nor receive the approval of Congress.  The president did not take the matter before the American people to make the case for war; although roughly a month later he did did make a formal prime time address to the nation on April Fools Day.  We heard a restatement of already-familiar talking points and were told the war was near completion and wrapping-up along with something about bombing them into the stone age.  With the exception of Israel, the president did not consult with our European allies or other global partners.  

Why is any of this worthy of mention?  The year 2026 had bright prospects  and by the end of February the president set in motion a cascade of destabilizing events that have dangerous consequences for global stability, security and the world's economy.  I think the president has stepped in it this time.

With the exception of Trump's war-loving MAGA base most of America disapproves of the war.   

Consequently, it should come as no great surprise that recent surveys of self-reported well-being have suggested that Americans are feeling discouraged and possibly becoming grumpy.   

Why is this important?  I hate to sound like a broken record but the American economy is not driven by manufacturing; it is a service economy.  With summer approaching the expectation at the beginning of the year was that of consumers spending more on travel and entertainment than last summer.  Accounting for two-thirds of all economic activity, it is consumer spending that fuels the US economy.  With the global disruption of energy supplies and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz all bets are off.

I've blogged on this subject from time-to-time and mentioned the University of Michigan's consumer sentiment survey which came in with preliminary results late last week.

The Consumer Sentiment Index plummeted 11% to a historic low of 47.6.  If these numbers hold by the time complete data is announced at the end of this month this represents the lowest reading in the survey's 74 year history.  In case you're interested, the previous record low of 50 was at the peak of Biden-era inflation.  

I'm not at all surprised.  I may be a retired financial guy but I know that average folks struggle with wrapping their mind around abstract economic data such as Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and Gross National Product (GNP), but everyone understands the gas pump.  Last week national prices for a gallon of regular gasoline hovered around $4.15 with diesel at $5.50; up roughly 39% from before Trump went to war.  Oh boy howdy.

Additionally, according to the US Chamber of Commerce Small Business Index, small business optimism fell for a second consecutive quarter this past week.  Just 28% of small business owners say the economy is in good health; down 10 points from the previous quarter.

Finally, driven by sharp spikes in energy costs, this last week we learned inflation is up Big Time. Raspberries and blueberries and fresh produce in general have risen in price as a consequence of increased transportation costs.  So when I suggest the President Trump has stepped in it; I'm doing so because his unilateral war in Iran may turn out to be a serious-bad unforced error.  While I may grouse about the increased cost of fresh produce the impact of Trump's excursion in Iran is being felt in both myriad and profound ways across the globe.

I don't want to come across as the skunk that showed-up at your garden party but these are three data points that are blinking like glaring red warnings on the instrument panel of the airplane you are piloting over a vast uninhabited rain forest without a landing strip in sight.

While not much of this is life altering to me; that is simply not the case for a many of my countrymen.  Worst-case, people are nervous about making ends meet. Best-case, they're anxious about possibly altering or canceling a summer family vacation.  Between you and me I think the president actually cares.  Less about anyone's hardships; but more about the midterms and polling. 

The missus purchased airline tickets since the war began and both wartime fuel and baggage surcharges were assessed.  So yeah, I'm feeling a wee bit grumpy too.  Hardly at all as a consequence of cost; but mostly because none of this nonsense has so far improved my lot in life and made the world any safer.  For my sake and yours I sure hope Trump fixes this.  

You can learn more about the University of Michigan data here.

How to Learn to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb

A funny thing happened on the road to the White House.  The president who turned-up isn't the same guy as the candidate.

The US war against Iran is unpopular and becoming more unpopular as it continues; furthermore, the latest Economist/YouGov Poll also finds few Americans support deploying ground troops to the conflict.

Or do other Americans see it differently?

Brigadier General Jack D. Ripper - Dr. Strangelove

It depends-upon whom you ask.

Only 30% of Americans strongly or somewhat approve of President Trump's handling of the Iran war with 60% disapproving for a net approval of -30.

Almost all Democrats (88%) oppose the war while independents oppose it by a 3-to-1 ratio.  

But there is this: Collectively, most Republicans support the war (62%) yet there is a huge gap in support between MAGA Republicans and non-MAGA Republicans (70% support vs. 33%).  Inasmuch as there are more than twice as many MAGA supporters as non-MAGA supporters among the GOP, MAGA opinion is basically settled science.   

Furthermore, a recent CBS News poll found that 92% of MAGA Republicans expressed support for military action against Iran, compared with only 70% of non-MAGA Republicans.

Amongst my MAGA acquaintances, and mostly on account of my unwavering support for arming Ukrainians in defending their country from a Soviet invasion, I have been characterized as everything from an armchair general to a warmonger.  

Naturally, beginning three years ago and following Vladimir Putin's unprovoked assault on Ukraine these same individuals reminded me at most every opportunity that supporting Ukraine's defense was distinctly at odds with candidate Trump's America First platform.  I quote:  'No foreign entanglements', 'We haven't won anything since WWII', 'Donald Trump is the greatest patriot ever' and 'You like war too much'.    

Candidate Trump may have ridden to reelection with a pledge to avoid forever wars yet systematically blowing alleged drug-running vessels and crews out of the Gulf of Mexico, a birthday military parade, deploying the military on America's streets, Houthis in Yemen (Operation Rough Rider), 529 air strikes across the middle east, Africa and central Asia, aerial strikes against Iranian sites last summer including ISIS in Iraq, threats to take Greenland by force, masked and unidentified federal paramilitary forces killing three American citizens, a military toppling of Venezuela's government, seizure of Venezuelan oil at the point of a gun, threats against Cuba, the current Iran war and recent musings to ditch NATO suggest that America First pretty much means whatever President Trump says it is; on any given day.  My impression is it is exceedingly warlike.

I had always figured that MAGA supporters preferred candidate Trump's populist pitch while bemoaning old-school Reagan neocons and their propensity for an assertive foreign policy.  Deservedly or not it is a fact I have been derisively called a neocon; yet the polling seems to suggest that MAGA world agrees-with and, only a short fourteen months into a second term, seems to have developed a powerful thirst for Trumpian military adventurism - both domestically and abroad.  

Just as with the CBS poll, if you dig thru the data, MAGA world is overwhelmingly in favor of mounting a war with Iran; and, when specifically asked if the war counts as an America First policy, only a mere 9% of the president's loyalists say it does not.

The Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute's 2025 National Defense Survey reveals that self-identified MAGA supporters were also the most supportive of all sorts of interventions in Taiwan with two-thirds supporting 'committing US forces in defense of Taiwan.'  That doesn't sound like isolationism does it?

Speaking for myself I happen to think that the Iranian Mullahs are a dangerous collection of twisted religious revanchists who would represent a threat to a peaceful world order if they had nukes and the capacity to deliver them.  I generally lose no sleep over dealing with bad actors by means of force.

Nevertheless, dealing with security threats deliberately and with forethought is not the same as impulsiveness.  And the world has no shortage of bad actors.  Most days I think the president has stepped in it this time and unleashed a cascade of destabilizing events that have dangerous consequences for global stability, security and the world's economy.  Let there be no misunderstanding, it is in my own self interest that things somehow work out for the best.  I'm also smart enough to know that five weeks into this the president's excursion is nowhere near a forever war.  Oh; and we don't have the highly-enriched stuff in our possession either.  Yet anyway.  There is that as a denouement.  

I have yet to hear what the exit strategy is.  You?

So for now I think we might be in for a stretch of rising energy costs, inflation and possibly some economic stagnation or contraction.  Only the passage of time will write the end to that chapter.

Meanwhile, there's a pile of the US population becoming grumpy over rising gasoline and diesel, increasing grocery prices due to supply chain disruptions and escalating transportation costs.  I'm beginning to believe that post-election MAGA world doesn't really care about that as much as they did a couple-three years ago.  Nobody's bitching about it at all on social media and not a single sole Trump supporter I speak with on a daily basis has yet to bring it up.  Loyalists are called that for a reason after-all.  Which is just fine; and it is perfectly OK to own what you have wrought.

It has occurred to me this might have something to do with ideological principles; dictated by whatever president Trump tells us to believe and the possibility that the beliefs of some reading this might be insincere.  Which is fine too; people are disingenuous all day long.  I understand that sometimes it is difficult to admit making a mistake.  I get it.  I make mistakes too.  Get over it.  Own it.

Or perhaps at its core the principle is to agree with the president in every respect; even if his actions contradict what he promised in order to get a voter's support.  No matter it damages their business and costs them the actual farm.  On that matter I can only speculate.

So, for any of my MAGA acquaintances reading this; if you want to call me an armchair general or a warmonger; have at it.  Throw neocon my direction for good measure.  I have a thick skin and since you're doing it from the warming glow of your device and not personally to my face I understand the context. Water off a duck's back.  Das macht nichts aus.  

Polling is science.  With growing awareness the rest of the world is learning that MAGA world likes war; and way the heck more than me.  Does MAGA like it too much?  That's hard to know as we're only fourteen months into President Trump's military adventurism.  I think we ain't seen nuthn' yet.  But I'm perfectly happy to be wrong.

I'm old enough to remember back to 1965 when a certain general famously pledged to eschew ground troops and use naval and air power to bomb the Vietnamese - Back into the stone age.  In his April 1st address to the nation it was fascinating to see and hear President Trump invoke the very same oath - verbatim.  Curious about from whom the president is taking his cues? 

A general splendidly associated with ruthless scorched-earth tactics against civilians.

Stay-tuned..... 

Moving The Goal Posts

Throughout his political career Donald Trump has often articulated a disdain for open-ended military conflicts.  You know; Forever Wars.    

He has often cited the trillions of dollars spent in Iraq and Afghanistan suggesting the US received nothing in return.  As an America First Populist he has argued that these resources are better spent on domestic priorities.  Both he and his followers have frequently blamed warmongering globalists, neocons, military leadership and a shadowy Deep State for dragging the country into unnecessary conflicts.  And he has been consistent in deriding the notion of nation-building.  

I cannot argue any of the foregoing as there is truth to be found in all of it; particularly the costs in lives, both military and civilian.  The purpose of this post is nothing more than to note, as an outside observer, the shifting rationales cascading in the wake of Operation Epic Fury. 

Following the January 2020 drone strike that killed General Qasem Soleimani Trump claimed the action was necessary to head-off imminent and sinister attacks on US diplomats and service members. Pressed by Congress the administration later moved the goal posts and in a formal memo to Congress, deleted any reference to an imminent claim, instead justifying the strike as a response to past attacks and to deter future aggression. 

In 2025 President Trump launched Operation Midnight Hammer striking Iranian nuclear facilities in Natanz and Fordow.  The president announced the facilities were obliterated, effectively ending Iran's nuclear ambitions.  In short order, and in direct contradiction of earlier claims, the administration moved the goal posts claiming Iran was rebuilding the same facilities as a rationale for the recent escalation of hostilities.

Then the goal posts were planted on Iran's ballistic missile program.  The rationale was the Iran was developing intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of striking our homeland soon. 

Defense Secretary Hegseth moved the goal posts arguing that Iran's conventional missiles and drones were a shield protecting their nuclear ambitions thus requiring the US to first dismantle Iran's conventional military.

Secretary of State Rubio suggested that the recent wave of attacks were preemptive in nature arguing that the US struck Iran because it knew Israel was planning an attack; consequently, the US had to strike first to neutralize Iran's capacity to attack our middle eastern bases.  Goal posts moved, again. 

Ironically the most inconsistent is the regime change rationale requiring moving the goal posts in both end zones.  Trump himself appealed to the Iranian people to take control of your government as he cheered the death of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei as a turning point.  Simultaneously, Defense Secretary Hegseth stated that the operations are not a so-called regime change war, framing it instead as a narrow mission to destroy specific Iranian military assets.  

Trump Says Germany is Helping With Iran Strikes

Between you and me, and hopefully within a relatively short passage of time, the administration will settle on some sort of rationale.  The goal posts may look something like this:  With insufficient international and weakening domestic support, military losses, rising oil prices, market volatility, insufficient evidence of any Iranian opposition capacity for overthrowing the current theocracy and a general lack of progress towards whatever rationale the administration eventually settles-on, it will be TACO time. The President will declare a win and victoriously announce we've done all that is possible for freedom-loving Iranians and that it is now time to move-on leaving them to pick-up the pieces.

I happen to believe regime change is overreach.  For the sake of Americans who wear a uniform in service to this country and civilians caught in the crossfire I pray for sooner; rather than longer. 

EDIT to add one hour following publication:

Attacks have intensified, with Iranian drone and missile strikes heading towards the Arab Gulf states. Many of these states rely on costly U.S. interceptors, and with stockpiles dwindling, energy infrastructure could become exposed.

The End of Venezuela?

Geopolitical strategist, Peter Zeihan, posted this yesterday morning. 

 

United States forces have captured the president of Venezuela, Nicolas Maduro, in the capital of Caracas.  Peter suggests that this event marks the beginning of the disintegration of what is left of the country... 

 

 

I got all sorta questions.

 

If you watched Telemundo last night - Venezuelans were celebrating.  They appeared ecstatic that Maduro is gone.  How could that possibly mean the beginning of the end?   If Peter believes Venezuela was already a dead state and where civilization is going to disintegrate, then wouldn't this action be a positive one as it provides Venezuelans an opportunity to turn things around?  It might be more like the beginning of Venezuela as a functional state.  

 

The military operation was nothing less than a spectacular tactical success.  Yet, what is the strategy to follow?  Is there a plan, some sort of architecture to manage an orderly transition?​  Or will this be a nation building mission with a vague and nebulous end result?  

 

Venezuela could install opposition leader and Nobel Peace Prize winner Maria Corina Machado; whom Maduro didn't allow to take office and Trump has also dismissed out of hand. 

 

It will be interesting to see where things are in one month, three month and six month intervals. 

 

And ask yourself this.  What gives the United States the authority to attack another country and remove their leadership?  

 

Who is next?

 

Mexico or Greenland? 

 

Exhausting

Depending on your priorities a lot can be done with $30 to $40 billion.

President Donald Trump has prioritized his friendship with the president of Argentina.

Javier Milei, nicknamed El Loco for his eccentric manners, is one of the few world leaders who attended Trump’s inauguration. Now, with his country facing a dire economic crisis, Trump is sending El Loco $40 billion in a not-at-all subtle effort to help him win reelection later this month.  Given the fact that Argentina's credit rating is basically junk you can kiss our money good bye.

And here’s the conundrum:  during Trump’s first term in office he started a trade war with China. When China responded by buying soybeans from Brazil instead of American farmers the resulting bailout cost all of us more than $35 billion.

Now, Trump’s doing it again, and another ginormous bailout will follow. 

America’s soybean crop is worth at least $30 billion. And once again, China pulled back and hasn’t bought any of our soybeans. Not a single, solitary, bean; much less the $12.6 billion they would have purchased from us at this same time a year ago.

So, where did China get their soybeans? 

Argentina.

The country now getting $40 billion from us.

Trump might have used that $40 billion to reinstate health insurance premium tax credits he insists on letting expire. So the government is shut down, Americans are seeing skyrocketing health insurance bills and farmers are hoping for a bailout check because the president wants to help a friend in a country that’s taking our spot in the global marketplace.

If you're still convinced this puts America First or if Argentina is ever going to pay us back you might just be El Loco. 

I don't see how any of this advances your and my prosperity and general lot in life.  For you readers who are Trump devotees I'm waiting for the explanation.  Meanwhile, all this winning is exhausting....

Jones Act

Peter suggests that if you tasked him with creating a list of the greatest threats to America, he’s not sure cabinets, name-brand drugs, and semi-trucks would be on there...but the President disagrees.

 

So, get ready for a massive economic bulldozer to hit the US due to these new tariffs. With 90% of all US cargo moving by truck, these higher costs will create a ripple effect through every sector. 

This all started back with the Jones Act, which made domestic shipping prohibitively expensive, causing a shift in freight from ships to rail to (almost entirely) trucks.

Since those trucks are made across an integrated North American supply chain, dipping into Canada, the US, and Mexico, tariffs are hitting hard. That means everything Americans consume, from your food to your clothes, will cost a whole lot more.

 

On This Day In History

Fifty years after the fall of Saigon (or its liberation, depending on whom you ask), Vietnam has transformed from a war-torn battleground to one of Asia’s fastest-growing economies—and now finds itself caught between two superpowers. 

For North Vietnam, the war was a hard-fought victory for independence; for South Vietnamese refugees, it marked a heartbreaking loss of homeland. For the United States, it was a national trauma and a cautionary tale about military overreach and unclear objectives. But beyond the battlefield, the country’s postwar path tells a remarkable story of recovery. 

After years of economic stagnation and international isolation—including a costly occupation of Cambodia and reliance on a crumbling Soviet Union—Vietnam had little choice but to pivot. The collapse of the USSR forced the country to look elsewhere, and by the late 1990s, it began opening its economy to the West. With the normalization of ties under President Clinton, Vietnam entered a period of rapid economic growth, joining the WTO and becoming a major global exporter, particularly in manufacturing. 

Today, Vietnam plays a careful geopolitical balancing act, especially as tensions rise between the US and China. When President Trump slapped sweeping tariffs on Vietnamese goods in April—only to pause them 90 days later—Chinese President Xi Jinping seized the moment to deepen ties with Hanoi. Now, Vietnam must decide whether Trump’s aggressive trade policy will push it further into China’s orbit, a reversal of centuries of resistance to Chinese influence.

Geopolitical expert Ian Bremmer breaks down how Vietnam went from devastation in the wake of the Vietnam War to becoming a regional economic powerhouse. 

Become a subscriber to follow where this leads us....